mnky
Staff
Guidelines
Investor Guide
New Free Market
Bookmarks
TQRspeak
Archives
Blogge
Login
FAQ

Stories are our businessTM

Free Market  
THE LAW OF INDIFFERENCE
Date: 2018/02/22 16:39 By: bulldust Status: Admin  
Karma: 0  
Admin

Posts: 101
graphgraph
There is a book titled “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck”. My good friend continually pushed me to read it. But I tell her I won’t read it because I don’t give a fuck enough to do so. She seems satisfied with this answer. She used to be concerned I worried too much. As a Bull moving into my older years, I tend to blow off the bullshit. Things tend to find a way of working themselves out. If they don’t, well fuck it, I can’t do shit about it anyway.

I have another friend who reminds me each time a problem appears that we are smart people and we can fix shit ourselves. Most of the time this is true. I have fixed cars, electronics, appliances, and a myriad of random crap. And when I can’t, I seem to be able to scrape together the finances to pay the person who can. But those things are not so frequent.

The cap “The Law of Indifference” deals with the problem of not giving a fuck. In a world where magic exists and is illegal, the main character Strayala employs the law on indifference to combat the draconian laws against magic. She uses her indifference to manipulate the situation and its participants. And for the most part, it works. Strayala is masterful at willing her success by allowing others to do the worrying and caring for her.

The structure of this cap is good. There are a few comma issues. There are always comma issues. This is well written and flows well. Overall, I enjoyed it.

I know this will be my second yes of the month, but yes. Rocks may disagree. But I did like this and think it should be tossed up for review.
Click here to see the profile of this user The topic has been locked.

Re:THE LAW OF INDIFFERENCE
Date: 2018/02/23 15:48 By: rockefeller Status: Admin  
Karma: 0  
Admin

Posts: 210
graphgraph

"The Law of Indifference holds that the more indifferent you are to something, the more likely it is to happen."

(If this were true, there'd be no casinos; probability makes no concessions.) In the context of this cap, it pertains primarily to the narrator's indifference toward living, which makes her impossible kill. But Rocks (who's not as intelligent as the POTUS or a pig but probably more intelligent than a turnip or a tuna) was confused. He wondered, would she not then be also indifferent to dying? Most of us are not indifferent to dying. Quite the opposite. Most would very much prefer not to die (even Rocks has his moments). Ergo, should we not all live forever? Also, regardless of one's philosophy of life and nihilistic bent, one is never indifferent about breathing. Yes, Rocks knows he's apt to hurt himself overthinking things, but still...

Strayala, the MC, is a witch (she has no belly button). When she was little, her parents were executed for being witches, and now it's her turn. But because of how indifferent she is to living, and because the law dictates that there can be no (i.e., no more than 2 drops) bloodletting in an execution, all attempts to execute her fail. If Rocks were in charge, he'd employ some sort of incendiary device, like maybe one of Amerika's new improved tactical nukes configured sub-kiloton, to vaporize her. (Sometimes Rocks wonders, what if they'd cut off Jesus' head instead of nailing him to a cross? His resurrection would've probably been a lot creepier.) Strayala becomes famous for her unkillableness.

The prose is good, though a few edits jumped out:

...my parent's trial.
only one parent?

He uncorked it and a healthy serving into the wine glass.
poured?

"Well, then I guess it's about time that I made witchcraft to legal in this town."

...just in case it ascends and the Monkey, because he is not all indifferent to such things, misses them.

The story itself is okay, though, even at around 4k it seemed to go on a bit too long for Rocks' shitty mood at the time of reading and, of course, his ADD. It's well made up but seemed to want for more interesting factoids, a bit more research maybe. He found himself reading faster as the yarn progressed. It's all so subjective, so personal. But to him, after all was said and done, it was just a story. Close, very close, but no.
Click here to see the profile of this user The topic has been locked.

Re:THE LAW OF INDIFFERENCE
Date: 2018/02/26 16:02 By: guevara Status: Admin  
Karma: 1  
Admin

Posts: 309
graphgraph
Hola el pendejos! El jefe mira quando tu eras cross purposes. El jefe que alerto l'architextura. Adios!
Click here to see the profile of this user The topic has been locked.

Re:THE LAW OF INDIFFERENCE
Date: 2018/02/27 13:32 By: bulldust Status: Admin  
Karma: 0  
Admin

Posts: 101
graphgraph
Who you calling asshole? I am a whole ass. Thank you very much.

Moo.
Click here to see the profile of this user The topic has been locked.

Re:THE LAW OF INDIFFERENCE
Date: 2018/03/22 21:53 By: architext Status: Admin  
Karma: 668  
Admin

Posts: 88
graphgraph
Ahhh the Law of Indifference. Funny enough, I agree with the comments from both screeners above--which is to say I'm largely indifferent myself. The affairs of mortals, magical or otherwise, are insignificant and fleeting when you've existed for billions of years and experienced the universe itself as a disposable entity. Thus it's difficult for me to fake any sympathy or empathy or any of those other aspects of human foolishness classified as emotional. This really raises some questions about how useful I can be as an arbiter of the viability of fictional scenarios for a website for puny Earth inhabitants, whose very existence is utterly inconsequential, and (spoiler alert) nearing its conclusion!

That said, "The Law of Indifference" posits an interesting premise. In that sense it's more a fictional essay than a piece of storytelling. It rushes by in the telling without many scenes. Ultimately (through the ol' first person, present tense trick) it deprives us of the climactic scene it's been gradually building toward: the narrator's grisly demise. Or perhaps it is meant to be open to the idea that the character doesn't die (but that would violate the logic presented in the story).

I suppose the problem for me is that upon reaching the end of the story I was not roped in enough to fake the emotions required to care which outcome it might be. The introduction of a baby provides a generic humanism, obviously alien to me, but one that undermined all the interesting aspects of the character that preceded it. It might be more involving if the character actually spent some time trying to be (or trying not to be) indifferent to the baby itself. For in this piece, the baby is, in its way, the actual blade of the executionist.

In any case, I feel it could be enhanced. Lose the chatty tone, shave off some baggage, and concentrate on developing some scenes. Maybe even drop witchcraft as an element and consider that the law of indifference might apply to ordinary people as well. The only people who truly know that are me and Kirk Douglas, but it's fun to watch humans blunder about guessing. In the meanwhile I'm tepidly leaning toward no on the cap. It's an admittedly close, indifferent no, but still a no. The Architext has spoken!
Click here to see the profile of this user The topic has been locked.